Most people do not realize it but there are two anthropologies; one which hopes to some day converge on a science of people and one which just accepts being another form of sociology. Given that, it would be difficult for a cultural anthropologist to survive any kind of legal cross-examination in a court room. Court cases are decided on facts, anthropology doesn't even define culture.
They can, however, conduct a survey and so they might be called on to discuss what the public believes. For that reason the annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA) in Pittsburgh will have Leila Rodriguez, a University of Cincinnati assistant professor of anthropology, discussing her experience as an expert witness in a case.
"I think the legal system's understanding of culture is very different from how anthropologists define culture," explains Rodriguez. "The legal system often is looking for something with clear limits around it - the black-and-white answer - when most of our answers as anthropologists are gray."
Rodriguez adds that some of the very ethical pillars of the profession can come into question, depending on what's expected of anthropologists as expert witnesses. "If I'm collecting data in a survey or interview, the respondent has a clear understanding of why I want the data and how I'm going to protect that person's privacy. That cannot be guaranteed for someone who's involved in a legal case."
Rodriguez will present on her own experience after she was hired by the defense as an expert witness in the case of a Mexican immigrant, accused by his ex-wife, a white American, of sexually abusing his stepdaughter. For her testimony, Rodriguez conducted surveys surrounding cultural beliefs of bed-sharing behavior between adults and children, focusing on opinions of Mexican and white-American individuals.
"The attorney indicated that if my findings served the defendant, then she would use them in court, but it turned out I had mixed results," says Rodriguez. "Mexicans were more diffuse in their beliefs whereas the white Americans' beliefs were strict. With that finding, it suggests beliefs that might be very central to one culture may not be very important to another culture. Ultimately, I didn't need to testify because the defendant took a plea deal."
Rodriguez says her paper also focuses on different approaches that anthropologists take to their research and how that can affect testimony in the courtroom. "In cultural anthropology, there's the strict - as close to scientific methodology - camp, and then there are the critical or interpretive anthropologists who have their own way of collecting data. The approaches are very different," explains Rodriguez. "If we differ in our approaches to collecting data, how does that stand up in court?"
Rodriguez adds that in the U.S. and western Europe, anthropologists are most commonly called to testify in asylum cases - someone from another country is seeking asylum and needs to prove why they need to escape their home country. In the U.S., she says anthropological testimony is often used as a defense. "So we need to learn how to navigate that, to give the legal system an understanding that culture exists, that there are cultural differences that shape human behavior and the way we see the world. But at the same time, we need to not fall into these deterministic definitions: 'It's my culture, so I couldn't help what I did.'"